set_filter_restatement

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter effects (displayName overrides label, flags toggle hide/lock) but omits critical traits: what happens if no matching filter is found, whether null values clear or leave existing settings unchanged, and any side effects or permissions required. This is significant for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining parameter semantics and scope-specific requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool, the description covers the main operation and scope logic but leaves gaps: no handling for missing matches, no mention of how null flags/displayName behave, and no reference to sibling tools that focus solely on lock/hide. Given the high schema coverage and no output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (89%), so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that displayName is the restatement, that lock/hide flags toggle specific states, and that page/visual requirements depend on scope. This helps disambiguate parameter combinations, earning an above-baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Set a filter card's RESTATEMENT ... and/or its lock/hide flags on a matching filter (by table[field]) at a scope=visual|page|report.' This provides a specific verb, resource, matching criteria, and scope, distinguishing it from generic filter tools. It also explains the effect of the primary parameters without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives some context on parameter usage ('For scope=visual pass page+visual; scope=page pass page') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lock_filter or hide_filter, nor when not to use it. It implies usage based on the operation but lacks exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.